Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Enforcing Cooperative Safety for Reinforcement Learning-based Mixed-Autonomy Platoon Control

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a cooperative control-barrier layer with conformal-prediction bounds can keep a mixed-autonomy platoon safe with probability $1-\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}}$, roughly doubling the survivable disturbance region in…

desk verdict Promising cooperative CBF-MARL framework whose central forward-invariance guarantee is undercut by the slack variables in the implemented QP and the per-step conformal bounds; still deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10031 v1 pith:AA4SNIBA submitted 2024-11-15 eess.SY cs.SY

Jingyuan Zhou , Longhao Yan , Jinhao Liang , Kaidi Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords mixed-autonomyplatoonscooperativecontrolbarrierfunctionmulti-agentreinforcementlearningconformalpredictiondifferentiablequadraticprogrammingsafety-criticalconnectedandautomatedvehiclesleadingcruise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

A multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) controller that directly outputs accelerations for connected automated vehicles (CAVs) cannot, by itself, promise safety: standard RL treats collisions as a penalty in the reward, and the policy is a black box. This paper claims that interposing a cooperative safety layer between the RL policy and the vehicles closes that gap. The layer solves, at every control step, a quadratic program whose constraints come from a cooperative control barrier function that lets leading CAVs create space for the human-driven vehicles (HDVs) following them, plus a conformal-prediction margin that absorbs estimation error with probability $1-\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}}$. In simulations, the set of braking and acceleration disturbances the platoon survives roughly doubles in an emergency-braking scenario and grows by about 70 percent when a following HDV accelerates irrationally, with only a small impact on efficiency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced-order cooperative CBF candidate $$h_{i,\mathrm{suf}} = h_i - \sum_{j \in \Omega_{S,i}} k_{i,j,\mathrm{CBF}} h_j,$$ with $h_i = s_i - \tau v_i$ the headway-keeping criterion. It converts the safety of an unactuated HDV, whose own constraint contains no CAV control input, into a constraint on the accelerations of the CAVs ahead of it, at relative degree 1, avoiding high-order CBF computation. That constraint is then inflated by the conformal margin $E_{\mathrm{con}}$, built from the quantile $C^{t|t-1}$ of nonconformity scores, so that Inequality (28) is a sufficient condition for forward invariance with probability $1-\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}}$. Finally, the QP problem with slack variables $\sigma_i$ for HDV constraints is embedded as a differentiable layer: differentiating the KKT conditions yields $\partial w^*/\partial u_{\mathrm{RL}}$ and $\partial w^*/\partial \theta_{\mathrm{CBF}}$, so the actor network and the CBF gains are trained jointly.

What would settle it

Run deployment episodes with disturbances drawn from the boundary of the safety regions in Fig. 4, for example an irrational HDV acceleration of $2.5\,\mathrm{m/s^2}$ held for 6 s instead of 4.5 s, and record the empirical frequency with which any $h_i$ drops below 0 or a slack variable $\sigma_i$ becomes active; if, over many seeds, the violation frequency substantially exceeds $\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}} = 0.01$, the claimed probabilistic forward invariance fails. A second check is to recompute the nonconformity scores on deployment data and compare their empirical quantile with the deployed threshold $C^{t|t-1}$: if the empirical quantile exceeds the threshold, the calibration assumption is violated and the safety margin is being exceeded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that if Constraint (28) holds at each step, the Lie-derivative CBF condition inflated by a conformal-prediction bound on the error terms $e_f$ and $e_u$, then the safety set $C = \{x : h_i(x) \geq 0\}$ is forward invariant with probability $1-\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}}$. The key step is the cooperative CBF construction: for each HDV $i$, the reduced-order candidate $h_{i,\mathrm{suf}} = h_i - \sum_{j} k_{i,j,\mathrm{CBF}} h_j$ subtracts the weighted CBF values of the CAVs ahead, so that a safety constraint that was independent of the CAVs' control input becomes a constraint on those inputs. Leading CAVs are then forced to react to protect following human drivers, and with multiple CAVs the whole platoon from the foremost CAV onward is kept safe. The probability in the guarantee comes from the conformal prediction module, which yields a threshold $C^{t|t-1}$ bounding the maximum acceleration prediction error across surrounding vehicles at level $\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}}$, and the differentiable QP layer converts the RL action into the nearest safe action while allowing gradient flow back into both the actor network and the CBF parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a one-time conformal-prediction threshold, calibrated on training data, keeps bounding every vehicle's prediction error during the rare and extreme safety-critical events the method is designed for, that enforcing the safety condition at discrete control instants preserves safety between instants, and that the human-driver constraints are never relaxed through their slack variables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The safety-guaranteed region roughly doubles in the emergency-braking scenario and grows by about 70 percent when a following HDV suddenly accelerates, compared with the same MARL controller without the safety layer.
  • Cooperation matters: in the irrational-HDV scenario the non-cooperative safe controller lets the CBF candidate go negative, while the cooperative version keeps the entire platoon safe.
  • The guarantee is probabilistic: with $\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}} = 0.01$, the safe set is forward invariant with probability 0.99 under the conformal error bounds, converting a reward-penalty approach into a quantified safety statement.
  • The efficiency cost is small: average time headway is 2.10 s versus 1.98 s without the safety layer, and the average absolute velocity error is 3.83 versus 3.17 m/s, indicating the safety layer activates sparsely.
  • The framework is agnostic to the car-following model used for HDVs and runs in real time because the QP layer is small and differentiable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The probability statement is only as strong as the calibration distribution: $C^{t|t-1}$ is a fixed quantile computed on training-condition data, so in deployment regimes where prediction errors grow, such as emergencies more violent than anything in calibration, the $1-\epsilon_{\mathrm{con}}$ guarantee silently degrades; an adaptive update of the threshold from online nonconformity scores is the
  • Constraint (28) is enforced at discrete 0.1 s sampling instants, and continuous-time forward invariance between samples is asserted rather than proven; a sampled-data CBF analysis bounding inter-sample drops of $h_i$ via Lipschitz constants of the dynamics would close that gap.
  • The reduced-order trick, subtract the weighted CBFs of actuated leaders from the CBF of an unactuated follower, is not platoon-specific and could couple any leader-follower system where followers are not directly actuated, such as pedestrian safety around automated vehicle fleets.
  • Because the slack $\sigma_i$ relaxes HDV constraints in the QP, the claimed system-level safety is conditional on those slacks staying at zero; monitoring $\sigma_i$ online effectively measures how close the system is to losing its stated safety guarantee.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a decentralized MARL framework for mixed-autonomy platoons with multiple CAVs and unknown HDV behavior. Each CAV's RL action is passed through a differentiable QP safety layer built on a cooperative CBF: CAVs ahead of an HDV are required to jointly satisfy a reduced-order CBF constraint for that HDV. Uncertainties in predicted accelerations of surrounding vehicles are quantified by split conformal prediction, and the resulting bound enters the CBF constraints as a robustness margin. The authors evaluate the method in two safety-critical scenarios and one efficiency scenario against five baselines. The central claim is that the safety layer provides a probabilistic forward-invariance guarantee for system-level safety, i.e., h_i >= 0 for all vehicles from the foremost CAV onward.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantee were established, the combination of a cooperative CBF, conformal uncertainty quantification, and a differentiable QP layer would be a meaningful step beyond reward-penalty RL for platoon control. The paper's strengths include a clearly stated system-level safety notion, an interpretable cooperative CBF construction, a principled uncertainty-quantification module, and systematic simulations with safety-region maps and case studies. The differentiable QP layer gradient derivations in Eqs. (33)-(37) are standard but correctly adapted. However, the paper currently overclaims: the implemented QP softens HDV safety constraints with slack variables, the conformal bound is per-step rather than trajectory-level, and the discrete-time implementation is not bridged to the continuous-time invariance theorem. These are not cosmetic issues, because the advertised contribution is a safety guarantee rather than purely empirical safety improvement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-D1, Eq. (28), and Section IV-D2, Eq. (32d)] The forward-invariance claim is made for the hard constraint (28), but the QP implemented in Eq. (32) replaces the HDV constraint by L_f h_{i,suf} + L_g h_{i,suf} u + gamma_{i,HDV} h_{i,suf} + sigma_i >= E_con, with sigma_i merely penalized in (32a) and with no upper bound. A positive sigma_i therefore makes the HDV constraint feasible even when Eq. (28) is violated, so the actual controller does not enforce Eq. (28). Consequently, the statement 'If Eq. (28) is satisfied, the safety set C is forward invariant with probability 1 - epsilon_con' does not apply to the closed-loop system with the slack variables. The authors should either enforce (28) as a hard constraint for HDVs or explicitly present HDV safety as a soft, prioritized objective and revise the safety-guarantee claims in the abstract, Section I, and Section VI accordingly.
  2. [Section IV-C, Eqs. (21)-(22), and Section V-B] The conformal threshold C^{t|t-1} is a marginal, per-step bound on one nonconformity score computed from the calibration distribution. The safety argument, however, requires that |e_f| and |e_u| are simultaneously bounded for every relevant vehicle at every deployment time step. Even under exchangeability, a union bound over T steps gives a trajectory-level failure probability of at most T epsilon_con, not epsilon_con; with epsilon_con = 0.01 and T = 1000 the bound is vacuous over the reported episode length. Moreover, the safety-critical scenarios in Section V-B are described as 'essentially different from the scenarios for training,' so the exchangeability assumption underlying Eq. (21) is not satisfied at deployment. Please state a trajectory-level coverage guarantee with calibration adapted to the deployment distribution, or limit the claims to empirical robustness.
  3. [Section IV-D and Section V-A] The CBF conditions (32c)-(32d) are enforced only at discrete sampling instants with a 0.1 s step and zero-order hold, while the forward-invariance theorem cited after Definition 1 is a continuous-time statement. No sampled-data CBF condition, inter-sample bound, or discrete-time invariance argument is supplied. The simulations cannot by themselves establish continuous-time forward invariance; the theoretical claim should be qualified to the sampled-data setting or supplemented with an inter-sample analysis.
  4. [Eqs. (15) and (32c)] The term gamma_{j,CAV}(s_j - tau u_j) uses the control input u_j where the CBF defined in Eq. (13) is h_j = s_j - tau v_j. As written, the CAV constraint does not implement L_f h_j + L_g h_j u + gamma h_j >= 0. If this is a typographical error and the implementation uses gamma(s_j - tau v_j), it should be corrected in both equations; if not, the constraint is incorrect and the CAV safety claim does not follow.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-B] The text refers to 'Section III-C' for the quadratic programming layer; this should be Section IV-D.
  2. [Section IV-D1, Eqs. (26)-(28)] The error vector e_u is declared in R^{2n}, but the control input has dimension m; the dimensions of the bounding terms involving e_u should be adjusted accordingly.
  3. [Eqs. (30)-(31) and (32d)] The class-K coefficient is denoted alpha_i,CBF in Eq. (30) but gamma_i,HDV in Eqs. (31) and (32d); the notation should be unified.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The colors 'dark blue' and 'light blue' are difficult to distinguish in grayscale and for colorblind readers; adding patterns or direct labels would improve clarity.
  5. [Section V-A] The text contains the typo 'wefficacy' in the reward weighting description; it should be 'wefficiency'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; minor self-reliance on authors' prior reduced-order CBF work, but the main safety argument is a standard conditional CBF construction.

full rationale

Walked the derivation chain. The safety layer is a constraint-based QP, not a fitted prediction. The forward-invariance claim is conditional: Eq. (28) is derived from Eq. (27) by bounding the unknown prediction errors with the conformal quantile C_{t|t-1} and Cauchy-Schwarz, then applying the standard CBF sufficient condition from Definition 1. No term in Eq. (28) is defined as the quantity it purports to guarantee; the conformal threshold is calibrated on a separate calibration set, and the theorem is stated as 'if Eq. (28) is satisfied'. The reduced-order cooperative CBF in Eq. (17) is introduced by extending the authors' prior work [15], a self-citation, but the construction is written out explicitly in Eqs. (17)-(20) and is not equivalent to its inputs; [15] serves as a design precedent and non-cooperative baseline rather than as the proof of the main safety guarantee. The notable caveats - the slack variable sigma_i in Eq. (32d), discrete-time enforcement of a continuous-time condition, and the per-step rather than over-trajectory nature of the conformal bound - are soundness or completeness gaps between the theorem's hypothesis and the implemented QP, not circular reductions of the output to the input. Therefore no specific circular step is exhibited, and the paper is best characterized as having minor self-reliance rather than circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central safety claim rests on standard CBF invariance, the V2V state-sharing assumption, validity of conformal bounds under deployment shifts, discrete-time applicability of continuous-time CBF conditions, and an unambiguous decentralized QP formulation. None is proven beyond prior results, and the first two are explicitly assumptions in Sections III-A and IV-C.

free parameters (6)
  • tau (desired time headway) = 0.3 s
    Hand-set in Section V-A; defines the safety set h_i = s_i - tau v_i in Eq. (13). The safety guarantee is conditional on this parameter.
  • k_i,CBF (cooperative CBF weights) = 0.4 for i in {2,3,4,5,6}
    Hand-set in Section V-A; determines the coupling strength in the reduced-order CBF (17) and hence the degree of cooperation.
  • gamma_j,CAV and gamma_i,HDV (CBF class-K coefficients) = trained, not reported
    Treated as trainable parameters theta_CBF in Eqs. (34)-(35); they shape the QP safety constraints and are updated during MAPPO training.
  • b_i (HDV slack penalties) = not reported
    Weights in Eq. (32a) balancing actuation deviation vs. HDV safety relaxation; values are not given.
  • epsilon_con (conformal failure probability) = 0.01
    User-set in Section V-A; determines the quantile threshold C in Eq. (22).
  • Reward weights w_global, w_local, w_efficiency, w_safety = 0.1, 0.9, 1, 1
    Empirically chosen in Section V-A for MARL training; not part of the safety layer but affect the learned policy.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard CBF forward-invariance theorem: if h is a CBF and control satisfies L_f h + L_g h u + alpha(h) >= 0 for all t, then the superlevel set {h >= 0} is forward invariant.
    Invoked via Definition 1 and Eqs. (4), (14), and used to claim safety in Section II-B and IV-D1.
  • domain assumption All vehicles, including HDVs, share their state information via V2V communication.
    Stated in Section III-A: 'we assume that all vehicles (including HDVs) are connected and can share their state information with other vehicles within the communication range via V2V communication.' This makes surrounding states observable to the safety layer.
  • domain assumption Conformal prediction calibration data are representative of deployment conditions, so the threshold C satisfies P(R <= C) >= 1 - epsilon_con at each step during evaluation.
    Section IV-C2 defines C using calibration scores; the safety layer uses it as a deterministic bound in Eq. (28). The safety-critical test scenarios are explicitly different from training (Section V-B), so the exchangeability assumption is questionable.
  • ad hoc to paper The discrete-time implementation of continuous-time CBF constraints with zero-order hold preserves forward invariance.
    The QP layer is solved at each sample step (Section IV-D2) but no discrete-time CBF condition or inter-sample safety analysis is given; this is an unstated assumption needed for the guarantee.
  • domain assumption The per-agent QP can choose safety-compensation actions for multiple CAVs in communication range without conflict.
    Eq. (32) treats u_safe as a vector covering j in (Omega_F,jk union Omega_P,jk union {jk}) intersection Omega_C, but each CAV is supposed to act decentralized; no mechanism reconciles overlapping QP solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enforcing Cooperative Safety for Reinforcement Learning-based Mixed-Autonomy Platoon Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AA4SNIBA

@misc{pith2026241110031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enforcing Cooperative Safety for Reinforcement Learning-based Mixed-Autonomy Platoon Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AA4SNIBA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10031}
}
read the original abstract

It is recognized that the control of mixed-autonomy platoons comprising connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) and human-driven vehicles (HDVs) can enhance traffic flow. Among existing methods, Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) appears to be a promising control strategy because it can manage complex scenarios in real time. However, current research on MARL-based mixed-autonomy platoon control suffers from several limitations. First, existing MARL approaches address safety by penalizing safety violations in the reward function, thus lacking theoretical safety guarantees due to the black-box nature of RL. Second, few studies have explored the cooperative safety of multi-CAV platoons, where CAVs can be coordinated to further enhance the system-level safety involving the safety of both CAVs and HDVs. Third, existing work tends to make an unrealistic assumption that the behavior of HDVs and CAVs is publicly known and rationale. To bridge the research gaps, we propose a safe MARL framework for mixed-autonomy platoons. Specifically, this framework (i) characterizes cooperative safety by designing a cooperative Control Barrier Function (CBF), enabling CAVs to collaboratively improve the safety of the entire platoon, (ii) provides a safety guarantee to the MARL-based controller by integrating the CBF-based safety constraints into MARL through a differentiable quadratic programming (QP) layer, and (iii) incorporates a conformal prediction module that enables each CAV to estimate the unknown behaviors of the surrounding vehicles with uncertainty qualification. Simulation results show that our proposed control strategy can effectively enhance the system-level safety through CAV cooperation of a mixed-autonomy platoon with a minimal impact on control performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Methodological framework for our proposed controller designed for multiple CAVs in a mixed-autonomy platoon, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conformal prediction results for the predicted acceler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accumulated training rewards per episode. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative position of all vehicles in the mixed-autonomy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Values of the spacings in the two safety-critical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Emergency Scenarios: An Integrated Decision-making Framework of Multi-lane Platoon Reorganization

    cs.MA 2025-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual-layer RL-plus-game platoon reorganization framework with a new graph-based PDI metric is claimed to cut collision rates and reorganization time in kinematic highway simulations, but key implementation details a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cooperative platoon formation of connected and autonomous vehicles: Toward efficient merging coor- dination at unsignalized intersections,

    Z. Deng, K. Yang, W. Shen, and Y . Shi, “Cooperative platoon formation of connected and autonomous vehicles: Toward efficient merging coor- dination at unsignalized intersections,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A mas-based hierarchical architecture for the cooperation control of connected and automated vehicles,

    J. Liang, Y . Li, G. Yin, L. Xu, Y . Lu, J. Feng, T. Shen, and G. Cai, “A mas-based hierarchical architecture for the cooperation control of connected and automated vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1559–1573, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Privacy-preserving data fusion for traffic state estimation: A vertical federated learning approach,

    Q. Wang and K. Yang, “Privacy-preserving data fusion for traffic state estimation: A vertical federated learning approach,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, p. 104743, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Connected vehicle data- driven fixed-time traffic signal control considering cyclic time-dependent vehicle arrivals based on cumulative flow diagram,

    C. Tan, Y . Cao, X. Ban, and K. Tang, “Connected vehicle data- driven fixed-time traffic signal control considering cyclic time-dependent vehicle arrivals based on cumulative flow diagram,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A platoon based cooperative eco-driving model for mixed automated and human-driven vehicles at a signalised intersection,

    W. Zhao, D. Ngoduy, S. Shepherd, R. Liu, and M. Papageorgiou, “A platoon based cooperative eco-driving model for mixed automated and human-driven vehicles at a signalised intersection,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 95, pp. 802–821, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Eco-driving of general mixed platoons with cavs and hdvs,

    J. Yang, D. Zhao, J. Lan, S. Xue, W. Zhao, D. Tian, Q. Zhou, and K. Song, “Eco-driving of general mixed platoons with cavs and hdvs,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1190–1203, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Leading cruise control in mixed traffic flow: System modeling, controllability, and string stability,

    J. Wang, Y . Zheng, C. Chen, Q. Xu, and K. Li, “Leading cruise control in mixed traffic flow: System modeling, controllability, and string stability,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 12 861–12 876, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Connected au- tomated vehicle cooperative control with a deep reinforcement learning approach in a mixed traffic environment,

    H. Shi, Y . Zhou, K. Wu, X. Wang, Y . Lin, and B. Ran, “Connected au- tomated vehicle cooperative control with a deep reinforcement learning approach in a mixed traffic environment,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 133, p. 103421, 2021

    2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Distributed deep-lcc for cooperatively smoothing large-scale mixed traffic flow via connected and automated vehicles,

    J. Wang, Y . Lian, Y . Jiang, Q. Xu, K. Li, and C. N. Jones, “Distributed deep-lcc for cooperatively smoothing large-scale mixed traffic flow via connected and automated vehicles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13171 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Safety-critical decision-making and control for autonomous vehicles with highest priority,

    Y . Shu, J. Zhou, and F. Zhang, “Safety-critical decision-making and control for autonomous vehicles with highest priority,” in 2023 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  3. [11]

    A deep reinforcement learning based distributed control strategy for connected automated vehicles in mixed traffic platoon,

    H. Shi, D. Chen, N. Zheng, X. Wang, Y . Zhou, and B. Ran, “A deep reinforcement learning based distributed control strategy for connected automated vehicles in mixed traffic platoon,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 148, p. 104019, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Privacy-preserving data-enabled predictive leading cruise control in mixed traffic,

    K. Zhang, K. Chen, Z. Li, J. Chen, and Y . Zheng, “Privacy-preserving data-enabled predictive leading cruise control in mixed traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    A parameter privacy-preserving strategy for mixed-autonomy platoon control,

    J. Zhou and K. Yang, “A parameter privacy-preserving strategy for mixed-autonomy platoon control,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 169, p. 104885, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Human– machine shared control for path following considering driver fatigue characteristics,

    Z. Fang, J. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Chen, G. Yin, and H. Zhang, “Human– machine shared control for path following considering driver fatigue characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Enhancing system-level safety in mixed- autonomy platoon via safe reinforcement learning,

    J. Zhou, L. Yan, and K. Yang, “Enhancing system-level safety in mixed- autonomy platoon via safe reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, pp. 1–13, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Enhancing high-speed cruising performance of autonomous vehicles through integrated deep reinforcement learning framework,

    J. Liang, K. Yang, C. Tan, J. Wang, and G. Yin, “Enhancing high-speed cruising performance of autonomous vehicles through integrated deep reinforcement learning framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14713 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Decentralized robust data-driven predictive control for smoothing mixed traffic flow,

    X. Shang, J. Wang, and Y . Zheng, “Decentralized robust data-driven predictive control for smoothing mixed traffic flow,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15826, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A reinforcement learning-based vehicle platoon control strategy for reducing energy consumption in traffic oscillations,

    M. Li, Z. Cao, and Z. Li, “A reinforcement learning-based vehicle platoon control strategy for reducing energy consumption in traffic oscillations,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 5309–5322, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Safety-critical and flexible cooperative on-ramp merging control of connected and au- tomated vehicles in mixed traffic,

    H. Liu, W. Zhuang, G. Yin, Z. Li, and D. Cao, “Safety-critical and flexible cooperative on-ramp merging control of connected and au- tomated vehicles in mixed traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2920–2934, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Data-driven predictive control for connected and autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic,

    J. Wang, Y . Zheng, Q. Xu, and K. Li, “Data-driven predictive control for connected and autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic,” in 2022 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 4739–4745. 13

    2022

  13. [21]

    Data-enabled predictive control: In the shallows of the deepc,

    J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. Dörfler, “Data-enabled predictive control: In the shallows of the deepc,” in2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 307–312

    2019

  14. [22]

    Reinforcement learning-based multi-lane cooperative control for on-ramp merging in mixed-autonomy traffic,

    L. Liu, X. Li, Y . Li, J. Li, and Z. Liu, “Reinforcement learning-based multi-lane cooperative control for on-ramp merging in mixed-autonomy traffic,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Risk- constrained reinforcement learning with percentile risk criteria,

    Y . Chow, M. Ghavamzadeh, L. Janson, and M. Pavone, “Risk- constrained reinforcement learning with percentile risk criteria,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 18, no. 167, pp. 1–51, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Safe reinforcement learning using black-box reachability analysis,

    M. Selim, A. Alanwar, S. Kousik, G. Gao, M. Pavone, and K. H. Johansson, “Safe reinforcement learning using black-box reachability analysis,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 665–10 672, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    A lyapunov-based approach to safe reinforcement learning,

    Y . Chow, O. Nachum, E. Duenez-Guzman, and M. Ghavamzadeh, “A lyapunov-based approach to safe reinforcement learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    End-to-end safe reinforcement learning through barrier functions for safety-critical continuous control tasks,

    R. Cheng, G. Orosz, R. M. Murray, and J. W. Burdick, “End-to-end safe reinforcement learning through barrier functions for safety-critical continuous control tasks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 3387–3395

    2019

  19. [27]

    Safe reinforcement learning using robust control barrier functions,

    Y . Emam, G. Notomista, P. Glotfelter, Z. Kira, and M. Egerstedt, “Safe reinforcement learning using robust control barrier functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05415, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control,

    W. Xiao, T.-H. Wang, R. Hasani, M. Chahine, A. Amini, X. Li, and D. Rus, “Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,

    B. Amos and J. Z. Kolter, “Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2017, pp. 136–145

    2017

  22. [30]

    Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,

    L. Lindemann, M. Cleaveland, G. Shim, and G. J. Pappas, “Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Conformal prediction: a unified review of theory and new challenges,

    M. Fontana, G. Zeni, and S. Vantini, “Conformal prediction: a unified review of theory and new challenges,” Bernoulli, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative multi-agent games,

    C. Yu, A. Velu, E. Vinitsky, J. Gao, Y . Wang, A. Bayen, and Y . Wu, “The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative multi-agent games,” Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 24 611– 24 624, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control,

    A. D. Ames, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control,” in 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control . IEEE, 2014, pp. 6271–6278

    2014

  26. [34]

    Aubin, A

    J.-P. Aubin, A. M. Bayen, and P. Saint-Pierre, Viability theory: new directions. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    String stability for vehicular platoon control: Definitions and analysis methods,

    S. Feng, Y . Zhang, S. E. Li, Z. Cao, H. X. Liu, and L. Li, “String stability for vehicular platoon control: Definitions and analysis methods,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 47, pp. 81–97, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    On structural and safety properties of head-to-tail string stability in mixed platoons,

    D. Liu, B. Besselink, S. Baldi, W. Yu, and H. L. Trentelman, “On structural and safety properties of head-to-tail string stability in mixed platoons,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Deep-lcc: Data-enabled predictive leading cruise control in mixed traffic flow,

    J. Wang, Y . Zheng, K. Li, and Q. Xu, “Deep-lcc: Data-enabled predictive leading cruise control in mixed traffic flow,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Modeling the effects of autonomous vehicles on human driver car-following behaviors using inverse rein- forcement learning,

    X. Wen, S. Jian, and D. He, “Modeling the effects of autonomous vehicles on human driver car-following behaviors using inverse rein- forcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators,

    K. V ogel, “A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators,” Accident analysis & prevention , vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 427– 433, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    Defining time-to-collision thresholds by the type of lead vehicle in non-lane-based traffic environments,

    S. Das and A. K. Maurya, “Defining time-to-collision thresholds by the type of lead vehicle in non-lane-based traffic environments,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 4972–4982, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    High-order control barrier functions,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “High-order control barrier functions,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3655–3662, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Safety critical control of mixed-autonomy traffic via a single autonomous vehicle,

    J. Zhou and H. Yu, “Safety critical control of mixed-autonomy traffic via a single autonomous vehicle,” in 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 3089–3094

    2022

  35. [43]

    Full velocity difference model for a car- following theory,

    R. Jiang, Q. Wu, and Z. Zhu, “Full velocity difference model for a car- following theory,” Physical Review E , vol. 64, no. 1, p. 017101, 2001

    2001

  36. [44]

    The effect of time headway feedback on following behaviour,

    S. H. Fairclough, A. J. May, and C. Carter, “The effect of time headway feedback on following behaviour,” Accident Analysis & Prevention , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 387–397, 1997

    1997

  37. [45]

    Adaptive control barrier functions,

    W. Xiao, C. Belta, and C. G. Cassandras, “Adaptive control barrier functions,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 2267–2281, 2021. Jingyuan Zhou received the B.Eng. degree in Elec- tronic Information Science and Technology from Sun Yat-sen University,...

    2021

  38. [2022]

    His research interests in- clude vehicle dynamics and control, autonomous vehicles, and vehicle safety assistance system

    Now he is a Research Fellow with Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore. His research interests in- clude vehicle dynamics and control, autonomous vehicles, and vehicle safety assistance system. Kaidi Yang is an Assistant Professor ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.